[PLAN] The system for nominating Presidential candidates is in need of reform'. Discus

‘The system for nominating Presidential candidates is in need of reform’. Discuss.

This question simply argues whether or not primary system should be reformed. 

Agree	Disagree (counter)
The competition between candidates in the same party becomes aggressive, bitter and so intense that it causes party divisions. Mutual insults and accusations may result in divisions within the party, which can attract unwanted negative media attention.	Although party divisions may indeed occur, they can be ‘healed’ later on through events like the National Party Convention. For example, the rivalry between Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama in the 2012 primary looked as though the party was split but Bill Clinton, a Democrat ‘hero’, reassured everyone at the Convention that he, and Hilary would be glad to see Obama as President for a second term
The primaries are supposed to be a lengthy process, however, since frontloading occurs this is no longer the case. In 2008 over 20 states held their primaries on 5th February, dwarfing all previous super Tuesdays. Candidates who do really well in primaries that are held early as a result of frontloading, such as John Edwards in 2004, have very little time to build on their success with regards to fundraising and building their campaign teams. Due to frontloading, states which do not hold their primaries early may feel disenfranchised since the results of the primaries will most likely be already decided in the earliest primaries.	Frontloading is no longer a problem to a certain extent considering the trend for states to have their primaries earlier reversed in 2012, meaning the good majority of them held theirs later on in the year. The U.S is a large country, many voters are not aware of their candidates and thus, the length of the campaign is inevitable to be long no matter how much frontloading occurs.
The fact that there is a low turnout emphasises the point that this system needs to be reformed. The 2012 primaries hit a record low of 15.9% (some sources say 17.3%) of eligible citizens turning up to vote. With regards to states: the highest turnout was recorded in Wisconsin (30.9%) and the lowest was in Maine (5.6%). The fact that the turnouts are this low suggests voters are dissatisfied with the current existing system otherwise they would be turning up to the polls.	Regardless of low turnouts, there is very much speculation that an alternative system will do enough to raise voter turnout. Low turnouts at the polls may not be a result of the system itself but other factors such as disillusionment with Congress. The reason for low turnouts can’t be blamed on the system itself since it’s really difficult to prove any of it
The existence of closed primaries and caucuses limit political participation to the extreme. In total the majority (28/50) of the US states have closed primaries which severely restricts the number of people who would be able to vote since voter registration is required. In order for a democracy to flourish political participation is vital and the existence of closed primaries in the majority of states undermines this.	Open primaries are no better, they come with their own setbacks, for example, it leaves primaries vulnerable to ‘raiding’, which is where voters from one   party vote for a weak candidate from the other party. This is something people have to make compromise with
It’s been said that no one can win the Presidential election without winning the first primary in New Hampshire. This is a major disadvantage of the nomination process because it means that the first primaries and caucuses (Iowa) will inevitably decide the winner of the Presidential election and the others are not very significant towards the outcome of the election. Candidates spend a great amount of time in Iowa and New Hampshire. This also means that results are arguably decided before the later states vote.	However, this no longer applies considering the fact that the last three Presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama never won the New Hampshire primary, yet went onto win the Presidential election, thus proving that the New Hampshire primary is not as crucial as people have suggested in the past.
The primaries do very little to test a candidates governing skills; if anything, they examine and test a candidates campaigning skills rather than how good they are at governing a nation. Before the nomination process was reformed, largely experienced and professional politicians selected candidates; this was known as ‘peer review’, which is basically the judgment of one’s colleagues or equals. They had a good idea of what qualities were required to be a good president. However, nowadays there is a lack of it since ordinary voters select candidates, there is no way they would know whether or not an individual has got good governing skills.	Campaigning skills are vital in such an era where the media dominates everything. However, the nomination process is perceived by ordinary voters as grueling race for a very demanding job, so people do somewhat judge governing skills. In 2008, many perceived Obama as the stronger candidate due to his grueling primary battle against Clinton.